Brutal and Bitter Wars

Every war in Latin America is a holy war, because of the Catholic church and the left wing's opposition to the Catholic church,

Jesus, was anyone in the right in that war? I mean out of all of the factions, who had the most justified cause?

Slovenia

They were/are geographically (Alps, not Balkans) and linguistically separate from the other Yugos

You could also argue they avoided the Turkish influence

also they didn't behave like fucking savages or resort to ethno-religious fanaticism

serbs are not people

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

they broke every rule and custom of the land in this war.

...

Jesus Christ that war is the best argument against nationalism because you get this shit

Bosnians, Slovenes.

To a lesser extent Croatians.

>3792▶
> (You)
>Bosnians and Croats

I read about Slovenia but how were the Bosnians and Croats in the right? Was there some kind of enemy they shared?

They took "give her the cock" too literally

they were 'in the right' in so far as they were resisting Serb domination of Yugoslavia and exercising their rights to self-determination, but the government/Milosevic got antsy and sent in the troops. the argument against is that they deliberately destabilized Yugoslavia and caused its downfall, while being inconsiderate of the large Serb minorities in those regions

The TL;DR of the Yugoslav Wars is like this

>after Tito dies, Serbs become the most powerful faction in Yugoslavia
>every other nation in Yugoslavia wants to abandon the country and go their own way
>Serbia is 50% butthurt that they won't have vassals any more, 50% scared that the Serb minorities in the new countries will be persecuted, like during WW2
>Milosevic capitalizes on these fears to become dictator of Serbia in order to go keep Yugoslavia together and fight off the evildoers trying to get their own countries
>invades Croatia with the regular Yugoslavian (read: Serbian) army and ruins that shit
>after the shitshow in Croatia, they decide to give Bosnia the old "autonomous local militia" treatment
>Milosevic calls up a bunch of literal mobsters (the leader was wanted by Interpol for murder and bank robbery before the war) and gives them all the old communist weapons stockpiles, and tells them they're now the Bosnian Serb militia
>Bosnian Serbs basically just murder everyone in their way in the name of more clay for the Serbs
>Clinton is tired of photogenic massacres showing up on CNN and making him look bad, so he bombs the Bosnian Serbs into agreeing to a peace deal
>the KLA, a group in Kosovo, a province of Serbia with a majority Muslim Albanian population, can't help but notice that every gangster with enough guns is getting their own country
>start an insurgency against Serb forces
>Serbs respond by killing a bunch of civilians every time a member of the Serb security forces gets killed
>Clinton is sick of this shit, there are tens of thousands of Kosovars dying out in the mountains because they fled the Serb forces
>bombs Serbia proper until they accept a peace agreement and pull their army out of Kosovo
>Serbs eternally butthurt about losing three wars inside of a decade (four if you count Slovenia)
>Russia butthurt because Serbia is their traditional butt buddy

So the whole thing was basically a shit sandwich from the start? What happened between all the ethnicities of the Balkans to cause these wars?

I forgot a couple of key details

>the Croatians in Bosnia also developed their own paramilitaries and participated in warfare
>the Bosnian Army was composed of Catholic Croatians, Orthodox Serbs, and Muslim Albanians, who all wanted the foreigners to leave their country alone
>Serbia invaded Slovenia, but it's called the ten day war, because it only lasted for ten days, because there are no Serbs in Slovenia and the Serbian invasion of Slovenia was basically just to get their forces into position for the real war in Croatia
>a brief war started in Macedonia between Albanian refugees and the Macedonian government, but the US basically stepped in and told both sides that the US would not tolerate a fifth Yugoslav War, resulting in an armistice before much blood was spilled
>right after the 9/11 attacks, FBI investigators seriously considered the possibility that the attacks were committed by pissed off Albanians, or some other faction from the Balkan Wars, by 9/12 they were sure it was Al Qaeda

Thanks for the effort frendo. Any other details I should know about?

Care to give a few examples? Why the hate between them?

Shit, I forgot a few of the big ones

>a lot of the same guys who traveled to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Iraq signed up to fight with the Bosnian and Kosovar forces during the Balkan wars, because muh Muslims being attacked by infidels
>the same type of war tourist retards compose the bulk of IS today
>remove kebab memers will pretend that the Serbs were protecting Europe from the Muslim hordes, despite the fact that Serbia's actions directly resulted in hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees flooding into Western Europe
>the US bombing of Serbia is one of the main factors that caused the incoming Putin administration in Russia to become opposed to the United States, as Serbia is traditionally a Russian client state (Russia entered WW1 to defend Serbia)
>Bosnia and Kosovo are still clusterfucks in terms of international law and diplomacy, because the peace treaties were designed to end the fighting as quickly as possible by just giving each ethnicity their own lands and separating them physically from one another, the Bosnian Serbs still have their own state within a state in Bosnia
>the KLA is basically just an organized crime family
>in between the war in Bosnia and the war in Kosovo, a large number of Serbian mercenaries got hired to fight in the First Congo War, where they raped and murdered their way through Africa
>Montenegro became independent from Serbia in 2008, apparently just because some politically connected goon wanted to be president for life of his own country
>one of my best friends in middle school and high school was a Serb, I used to spend afternoons playing tennis with him and explaining to him why his country deserved to be bombed
>we're still friends

Shit, I forgot the big one

>Croats did in fact kill hundreds of thousands of Serbs when they were a client state of Nazi Germany during WW2, they just threw Serbs into the same camps as the Jews
>this is the primary reason why Serbs were so scared to let any country with a Serb minority achieve full independence

white brutality + nigger criminality = south americans

You have to understand the buildup to this massive outburst of violence in Colombia. Liberals and Conservatives had been going at each others throats in various civil wars and political schemes throughout the 19th century that divided the people sharply. Towns,villages and families were divided by political allegiance which in turn stood for two very different societal visions.

A good book on the history of Colombia is "The Making of Modern Colombia: A Nation in Spite of Itself" by David Bushnell.

War of the Triple Alliance comes to mind. Paraguay gets teamed up on by some of the biggest powers in South America and over half of the entire Paraguayan nation dies in the war.

The Northern and Albigensian Crusades were pretty savage as well.

The Armenian Genocide really is disturbing in terms of how much the Ottomans tried to eradicate the Armenians. They would take Armenian children, put them on a boat and take them a few miles off the coast so they could throw them out to drown or sink the boat full of kids. They would round up Armenians and burn them en masse. They would drop Armenians in the middle of the desert to march to their deaths, foreign observers reported back of the endless trails of corpses due to all the death marches. All of this was brought upon by Ottoman setbacks at the hands of Christian nations in the years before.

The Punic Wars. Rome is like WW2 Russia and Carthage is like Germany. The Romans engaged in total war on an industrial level (massive use of manpower, created large Navy in a short time, developed naval corvus, etc.). Hannibal undertook a ridiculous treck expending tremendous resources in a fantastic logistical feat, that may have put Carthage a little over its head; though it was the cavalry advantage caused by a Numidian betrayal that lead to Hannibal's defeat at Zama, so its not as if Hannibal would have lost the war (or at least on the terms that it did, with Rome at its doorstep).

Thanks mane

What did the Carthaginians do to piss of the Romans so much that they built a Navy and raised an army, whom which I assume the Soldiers must've harbored hate for the Carthiginians, so much?

You wont get an easy consensus on this one unless you ask a croat, serb bosniak or slovene. The serbs claim that the massacre cited was fabricated and in fairness the finnish woman who anecdotally reported it to the UN has come out and said as much a decade after the incident.

Those wars were brutal but I encourage you to look at the complicated history and absolutely ignore any ex Yugoslavian input since the rabid whitewashing nationalism isn't in any way exclusively Serbian.

In America we do it all baby! :(

No shit.

On one hand we've got the Angel of Marye's Heights, Confederate troops at Cold Harbor refusing to shoot and later cheering a color bearer who was advancing toward them totally alone, and General Chamberlain saluting John B. Gordon's men at Appomattox.

On the other hand, we have Bleeding Kansas, Bloody Bill Anderson, John Chivington, Fort Pillow, the destruction of Atlanta and Lawrence, Andersonville and Point Lookout being run like Death Camps.

Truly one of the most fascinating conflicts of all time. A window to both the past and future in all its glory and gore.

Another point, the Civil Wa both broke America free from the grip of the century-long question of slavery but also left a wound in the American psyche that never completely healed.

It paved the way for America's future while at the same time forever chaining it to the past.

No doubt when the next one eventually occurs, be it a year from now or 100 years from now, people will point to the first Civil War as its origins.

TL;DR the Civil War cast a long shadow in its wake and we're still living in it.

>conquer one of the greatest coties in Christendom
>get btfo by Westerners later
>throw a tantrum and try to exterminate armenians
>deny it

I fucking hate t*rkroaches

How can people consider Serbs "based"?

Thirty years war
>Mass executions of protestants by catholics
>Mass executions of catholics by protestants
>Famines all over Europe
>Not enough gold to pay mercenaries So pillaging, raping is pretty normal
>30% or more of Europe is dead in the end

The Mercenary War seems to rank quite high on the list of bitter and brutal wars.
It was a conflict take took place shortly after the First Punic War when the government of Carthage failed to pay its mercenary soldiers.

>The conduct of the war was barbaric even by the standards of the time. Polybius called it a "truceless war", without any concept of rules of warfare and exceeding all other conflicts in cruelty, ending only with the total annihilation of one of the opponents.The conflict escalated when the mercenary leadership tortured and killed its Carthaginian prisoners and in response the Carthaginians committed similar actions. At the instigation of the mercenary leader Autaritus, Gesco and 700 of his men had their arms and legs broken, their hands cut off, were castrated, and were thrown into a pit to die, according to Polybius. These atrocities were intended to prevent any possibility of a negotiated settlement, contributing to the "most impious war in history."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary_War

American War In The Phillipines

Who are you refering to?

We swedes certainly know how to party in Europe:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(history)

>During the wars the Commonwealth lost approximately one third of its population as well as its status as a great power.[7] According to Professor Andrzej Rottermund, manager of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, the destruction of Poland in the deluge was more extensive than the destruction of the country in World War II. As Rottermund claims, Swedish invaders robbed the Commonwealth of its most important riches, and most of the stolen items never returned to Poland.[8] Warsaw, the capital of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, was completely destroyed by the Swedes, and out of a pre-war population of 20,000, only 2,000 remained in the city after the war.[9] According to the 2012 Polish estimates, financial losses of Poland are estimated at 4 billion zlotys. Swedish invaders completely destroyed 188 cities and towns, 81 castles, and 136 churches in Poland.

The romans just had a fucked up understanding of warfare. To them it could only end with the subjugation of the enemy no matter how many legions it would cost.

How do their actions reflect nationalism?

Hannibal would have lost anyway because Scipio was better than him in every regard.

The Pacific War and to a lesser extent the Eastern Front of WWII

Because they were doing it to t*rk spawn

Its central América, not south america. Colombia doesn't count.

>The Pacific War and to a lesser extent the Eastern Front of WWII
>to a lesser extent

Do you really believe the Pacific War was in any way comparable to the savagery of the eastern front?

If so you must either be American and/or completely clueless as to the extent of the extreme hatred and atrocities involved, and should probably go read about it before posting.

This fucker right here: If the soviets had trouble with traversing a place they sometimes used PoW's and water to make a stable ground for their transports.

If you start from the beginning of Japanese expansion, then yes it was definitely comparable. Japanese were pretty brutal in their own right.

>Confederate troops at Cold Harbor refusing to shoot and later cheering a color bearer who was advancing toward them totally alone
Where can I read up on this?

AYO HOL UP

I hear you be looking for grim and bitter wars full of pointless suffering and hatred?

Then I have the war for you!

Behold the Iran-Iraq war: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

>Since the Iranians suffered from a shortage of heavy weapons but had a large number of devoted volunteer troops, they began using human wave attacks against the Iraqis. Typically, an Iranian assault would commence with poorly trained Basij who would launch the primary human wave assaults to swamp the weakest portions of the Iraqi lines en masse (on some occasions even bodily clearing minefields). This would be followed up by the more experienced Revolutionary Guard infantry, who would breach the weakened Iraqi lines, and followed up by the regular army using mechanized forces, who would maneuver through the breach and attempt to encircle and defeat the enemy.

>Iraq began to focus on using defense in depth to defeat the Iranians. Iraq created multiple static defense lines to bleed the Iranians through sheer size. When faced against large Iranian attack, where human waves would overrun Iraq's entrenched infantry defences, the Iraqis would often retreat, but their static defences would bleed the Iranians and channel them into certain directions, drawing them into a traps or pockets. Afterwards, Iraqi air and artillery attacks would pin the Iranians down, while tanks and mechanised infantry attacks using mobile warfare would push them back. Sometimes, the Iraqis would launch "probing attacks" into the Iranian lines to provoke them into launching their attacks sooner. Chemical weapons were used as well, and were a major source of Iranian infantry casualties.

Cont. in part 2

Cont.

>I don't have enough room for the quote about the 'War of cities' strategic bombing campaigns that killed tens of thousands of civilians

Meanwhile in Iraq:

>In the summer of 1982, Saddam began a campaign of terror. More than 300 Iraqi Army officers were executed for their failures on the battlefield. In 1983, a major crackdown was launched on the leadership of the Shia community. Ninety members of the al-Hakim family, an influential family of Shia clerics whose leading members were the émigrés Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, were arrested, and 6 were hanged. The crackdown on Kurds saw 8,000 members of the Barzani clan, whose leader (Massoud Barzani) also led the Kurdistan Democratic Party, summarily executed. From 1983 onwards, a campaign of increasingly brutal repression was started against the Iraqi Kurds, characterised by Israeli historian Efraim Karsh as having "assumed genocidal proportions" by 1988. The al-Anfal Campaign was intended to "pacify" Iraqi Kurdistan permanently.

And in Iran:

>In June 1981, street battles broke out between the Revolutionary Guard and the left-wing Mujaheddin e-Khalq (MEK), continuing for several days and killing hundreds on both sides. In September, more unrest broke out on the streets of Iran as the MEK attempted to seize power. Thousands of left-wing Iranians (many of whom were not associated with the MEK) were shot and hanged by the government. The MEK began an assassination campaign that killed hundreds of regime officials by the fall of 1981. On 28 June 1981, they assassinated the secretary-general of the Islamic Republican Party, Mohammad Beheshti and on 30 August, killed Iran's president, Mohammad-Ali Rajai. The government responded with mass executions of suspected MEK members, a practice that lasted until 1985.

And the best part of all

>Result: Stalemate - Status Quo Ante Bellum

Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

>The impact of the war on the Irish population was unquestionably severe, although there is no consensus as to the magnitude of the loss of life. The war resulted in famine, which was worsened by an outbreak of bubonic plague. Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the Parliamentarian campaign range from 15 to 83 percent.

>. Drogheda was garrisoned by a regiment of 3,000 English Royalist and Irish Confederate soldiers, commanded by Arthur Aston. After a week-long siege, Cromwell's forces breached the walls protecting the town... and the majority of the garrison and Catholic priests were killed. Many civilians also died in the sack. Aston was beaten to death by the Roundheads with his own wooden leg.

>Wexford was the scene of another infamous atrocity, when Parliamentarian troops broke into the town while negotiations for its surrender were ongoing, and sacked it, killing about 2,000 soldiers and 1,500 townspeople and burning much of the town.

>In 1641–42 Irish insurgents in Ulster killed between 4,000 and 12,000 Protestant settlers who had settled on land where the former Catholic owners had been evicted to make way for them.

>[English] tactics included the wholesale burning of crops, forced population movement, and killing of civilians. The policy caused famine throughout the country that was "responsible for the majority of an estimated 600,000 deaths out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000".

>In addition, the whole post-war Cromwellian settlement of Ireland has been characterised by historians such as Mark Levene and Alan Axelrod as ethnic cleansing, in that it sought to remove Irish Catholics from the eastern part of the country, others such as the historical writer Tim Pat Coogan have described the actions of Cromwell and his subordinates as genocide.

>I'd like to know more about the Punic Wars, I read somewhere that the Romans and Carthaginians shared the same dynamic between them like the US and Japanese did during the Pacific War

The first Punic War doesn't seem to have actually been that brutal, and we can infer this because Carthage fought a civil war after the First Punic War, and this war was often simply called "the Truceless War". No accounts of the First Punic War talk about it in such horrific terms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary_War#Course_of_the_war

>So the whole thing was basically a shit sandwich from the start?

Yes, the whole notion of "Yugoslavia" was a mistake. Just because a bunch of people speak similar languages doesn't mean they should be lumped into the same country, especially if they practice different religions.

>The Armenian Genocide really is disturbing in terms of how much the Ottomans tried to eradicate the Armenians. They would take Armenian children, put them on a boat and take them a few miles off the coast so they could throw them out to drown or sink the boat full of kids. They would round up Armenians and burn them en masse. They would drop Armenians in the middle of the desert to march to their deaths, foreign observers reported back of the endless trails of corpses due to all the death marches. All of this was brought upon by Ottoman setbacks at the hands of Christian nations in the years before.

Leaving the Turks alive after WWI was a mistake, holy shit.

It all started with Sicily. Oddly enough, Rome and Carthage were originally allies against the Greeks. The whole Mediterranean was fucking weird then.

Some German towns lost up to 3/4 of their population from a combination of war deaths and people fleeing the towns.

Underrated posts.

If anything Yugoslavia shows the danger of not letting separate nations get their own states.

To be fair, Scipio was one of the greatest generals of all time. Saying Hannibal wasn't as good as Scipio is like saying someone isn't as fast as Usayne Bolt.

1) Soviet war in Afghanistan
2) Civil war in Tajikistan

didnt the germans during the battle of the bulge acknowledge the bravery of the US paratroopers they took POW?they even gave them their chocolate rations.

Possibly. The Germans were far more civil in the Western Front than the Eastern Front.

...

...

>All of this was brought upon by Ottoman setbacks at the hands of Christian nations in the years before.

These massacres were occurring sometimes in the region since at least the 1840s (against Assyrians, as in WWI).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Badr_Khan

It seems that, if anything, these were made easier by the setbacks to the central government. And I don't think the emirs there fought Europeans by then.

>argument against nationalism

You can be a nationalist and not fucking stab pregnant women and children.

Eastern Front in WW2
Nothing really compares to ferocity and sheer destruction and death in human history

Why do you guys really have to have these sufferboos threads? You guys are cancer. Irl cancer too because I know sufferboos IRL and the only favet of history they care about is when people were dying en masse and...who am I kidding. Any films about any of these wars ?

Usually they just shot them.

SS troops during the the Battle of the Bulge were supposedly given explicit instructions to treat American POWs extremely harshly, hence why close to 500 of them were murdered in massacres not unlike the kind they had carried out against the Red Army countless times (Malmedy being the largest) and shipped even more off to concentration and forced labor camps where another third were worked to death. If the Germans did treat Americans kindly, it was generally in contravention to orders.

But can one be communist and not steal and rape?

Saw it on TV actually

youtube.com/watch?v=pof6EXGFBlQ

This Confederate soldier's memoir might be referring to the same incident however.

books.google.com/books?id=1lLtuS6ASV0C&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=lone union color bearer cold harbor&source=bl&ots=tfpyTsyi6a&sig=ri7X7Be-BcFRsNbOaw-yXYMIszw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWlqLzya7UAhVNy2MKHWv6AkYQ6AEIVTAJ#v=onepage&q=lone union color bearer cold harbor&f=false

Peiper a gud boi, dindu nuffin

In the Bosnian war?
No one. The Bosniaks brought it upon themselves. They shot the first bullet, and they are the ones who stopped the pre war negotiations and brought down the Cutileiro plan. Also, their secession was unconstitutional unlike the Slovene and Croat ones.
>bosniaks shoot up a serbian wedding
>serbs refuse Cutileiro plan
>serbs backtrack and everyone signs the Cutileiro plan
>croats slaughter serbs 60
>bosniaks withdraw from the Cutileiro plan
>serbs slaughter bosniaks
>war officially starts
And then you get escalation after escalation.
Sad, how the goal of the secession was to "keep the war out of Bosnia", but resulted in the bloodiest and dirtiest of the wars in the former Yugoslavia.
In the broader dissolution of Yugoslavia?
Slovenia.

I also read that they had the most homogeneous society, so they never went through the whole ethnic tension thing as bad as Bosnia and Serbia did.

Where's this quote from?

Their secession was on the grounds of reform, dropping communism, and decentralization.
Croatia's was on the grounds of "muh 1000 year dream of independence"
Milosevic wanted to be Stalin, he accused every Serbian opposition politician of being a western, nazi, capitalist spy. And literally pushed the meme that the Serbian right wing wants to burn Croatia to the ground, while he only wants to return order to Yugoslavia (btw he also accused federal reformists of wanting to destroy the country)

>Result: Stalemate - Status Quo Ante Bellum

All that death for nothing. Damn

This here.

The Filipinos started an insurgency and may or may have not done some atrocious things to the Soldiers and Marines occupying the country so the US replied with even more brutality. I can't remember the exact details but I remember reading on how after they found a Marine buried up to his neck with a trail of sugar leading from the jungle to his mouth so the ants could eat him inside out, the Marines hopped on boats and went down a winding river that went through most of the country and pretty much removed any villages they found. I think its also the only insurgency the US has ever effectively beaten overseas, just goes to show the consequences and the brutality that goes into winning a war against an insurgency.

no

there is no limit to the turkish brutality in the storyteller's imagination, yet so little evidence for the actuality of the genocide, and almost no evidence for the thousands of stories of rape, pillaging or depravity of the turks against armenians. the armenian genocide is a novel or epic fantasy similar to poetry, where cyclops and man-killing harpies would be mentioned.

>When we were on the beach, waiting to leave, The Japanese were lobbing some artillery on us, some pretty heavy shells.
>The shells were falling way too close for comfort when we were about to leave that place
>One of the shells hit a DUKW amphibious vehicle and sank it. The guys all got killed
>We had some Japanese Prisoners there on the beach. During this shelling, one of the guys who was standing guard told a Jap, "This is your chance, jump over that fence and get the hell out of here!"
>So the japs did and the guard shot them dead
>Hell, thats nothing. When the Japs were in China, they were throwing babies in the air and catching them with bayonets you know
>Art Pendleton USMC

Among other things, the Marines and Soldiers who fought the Japanese got down to their level pretty fast after Guadalcanal, I don't think many Germans or Russians would boil out each other skulls and send them back home as trophies.

No, they turned them into fertilizer and boner pills instead

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Marshes

>with Iraqi helicopter gunships being deployed to "hunt" the Iranian troops through the swampy land
>Iranians were left with over 40,000 casualties, 20,000 of those KIA
>1,200 Iranians die in one day when confronted with Iraqi defense in depth and mustard gas

Good God,..

>americans really believe that killing some ill equipped and starving japs in some jungle island compares to the Stalingrad or Kursk battles

Iraqis also used electric cables as a kind of booby trap. They basically ran cables through the marshes, or even manmade "lakes", and turned them on when there were enough Iranians running through the water.
Just imagine that. You're in a massive human wave attack stumbling through a marsh and suddenly everyone around you starts convulsing, electricity running through your friends. And when you finally make it through, Iraq just uses their artillery to bombard you with gas.

Just read about stuff like Mamayev Kurgan, the hill that overlooked Stalingrad and saw really fucked up fighting. It's now a tourist destination and yet, bones and shrapnel still gets found after heavy rains.

Mamayev Hill was actually almost completely black for many years after the battle because the shrapnel, wreckage, and powder had poisoned the soil. Snow didn't fall on it either because the ground temperature was raised by all the debris and fires.

Japs weren't exactly a push over

>late one afternoon a buddy and I returned to the gun pit in the fading light.
>we passed a shallow defilade we hadn't noticed previously. In it were three Marine dead.
>They were lying on stretchers where they had died before their comrades had been forced to withdraw sometime earlier.
>As we moved past the defilade, my buddy groaned "Jesus!" I took a quick glance into the depression and recoiled in revulsion and pity at what I saw
>The bodies were badly decomposed and nearly blackened by exposure. This was to be expected of the dead in the tropics
>But these Marines had been mutilated hideously by the enemy. One man had been decapitated.
>His head lay on his chest; his hands had been severed from the wrists and also lay on his chest near his chin.
>In disbelief I stared at the face as I realized the Japanese had cut off the dead Marine's penis and stuffed it into his mouth
>The corpse next to him was treated similarly. The third had been butchered, chopped up like a carcass torn by some predatory animal
>From that moment on I never felt the lest pity or compassion for them no matter what the circumstances.

To be fair, The Eastern Front was brutal and dehumanizing based off the industrialized scale of death and destruction it brought, the Pacific was a soul crushing and grimy war that brought everyone involved down to the level of savages fighting to the bitter end

>B-but they did mean things to dead bodies!!!

No one cares, burger. Pacific Front was a cakewalk compared to the eastern front.

the Pacific was a soul crushing and grimy war that brought everyone involved down to the level of savages fighting to the bitter end
That is true for the eastern front as well.

>unborn infants were removed by crude Caesarian section and replaced by roosters,

wtf

I'm not saying Pacific War was a cake walk, it wasn't but it perfectly clear that the Allies had the advantage right from the start, so it was basically the matter of clearing up japanese holdouts. Americans had the advantage in manpower, equipment, supplies, air and naval superiority.
Also there were plenty of mutilations in Eastern Front. I remember reading that the reason why German partisan reprisals in the East were so severe and cruel is because they were constantly finding dead German soldiers castrated, their ears, noses and fingers cut off, lying in a ditch naked because of the partisans.
Eastern Front was the same as Pacific, except 10 times the scale.

I've read books written by men who fought on both fronts (The Forgotten Soldier and With the Old Breed are one of my favorites), I don't care who anyone is, I wouldn't want to be a German
infantryman realizing that there are more Russians running at him than he has ammo on some blasted steppe or a US Marine who hasn't slept in 2 weeks of straight combat in a maggoty foxhole because of Japanese infiltrators and the rain.

poor germs
To think that the original plan was that they will be home by christmas :'(

I know there are a thousand threads on this but why? Did the Germans really have no choice but to invade Russia? It just all seems so self inflicted to more I read about the Eastern Front, did they even stand a chance?

You mean multiculturalism? It seems to end the same way anytime two groups occupy the same land.

first of they really underestimated the russians.
second they really didn't have a choice. Think about it, you just conquered the west and failed to knock britain out of the war. Hitler I think knew that if they waited too long eventually the US will join in the war and attack the west like it happened. Now when this happens Stalin will most certainly join in too. I think he wasn't that stupid in regards that he was running out of time. He needed to act fast so he could capture tremendous amount of resources, oil and manpower to win the war against the west too.

So Germany took a risk and it didn't pay off huh? Kind of like how the Japanese took a risk pissing off the US and it backfired horribly for everyone

exactly

Thats terrible, when did the Eastern Front get at its ugliest? I've studied the Pacific Front extensively and, for the war overall, the Japanese occupation of China saw levels of cruelty that rivals medieval Europe, for the US side it had to have been the Battles of Peleliu, Saipan and Okinawa, Okinawa were particularly ugly battles, throw in veteran Marine and Army units that had nothing but hate for the Japanese with the Ryukyuan civilians being drafted for the war effort and WWI tier weather and terrain and you have mind breaking clusterfuck that makes you wonder how anyone left with their sanity.

at one point the Japanese 24th Infantry Division tried to do a counterlanding during the Battle of Okinawa Army units and the Marine units that flanked them, in the span of a little over a 24 hours, 6,000 Japanese soldiers were killed by the 7th and 77th Infantry Division with the help of the 1st Marine Division. By the end of the battle, most of the 24th Infantry Division had been completely annihilated.

Also tell stories of brutality from the Eastern Front, individual infantrymen accounts especially